Well, that's rabbits for you, Nick

I noted this on the b&w parent post and it's even more commendable here.

I'm really impressed that the artist portrays Judy and Bonnie with breasts that actually seem like they're covered with fur.

I've never quite understood those pieces of NSFW furry art that portray a male or female character with such slicked back, shiny "fur" that it's indistinguishable from oiled-up, bare skin.

Those pix always make me wonder why bother making the character a furry if you're going to draw them so they don't look furry.

Family fun time.

Nuuuuuu halp

rva98014 said:
Those pix always make me wonder why bother making the character a furry if you're going to draw them so they don't look furry.

Because a lot of people prefer humanoid art. Things like species are decoration. Few people are going 'No, I don't like this piece because I've never really liked rabbits.' They're going off of butts and chests and all the rest. In my experience surprisingly little of the furry fandom revolves around actual fur.

rva98014 said:
I noted this on the b&w parent post and it's even more commendable here.

I'm really impressed that the artist portrays Judy and Bonnie with breasts that actually seem like they're covered with fur.

I've never quite understood those pieces of NSFW furry art that portray a male or female character with such slicked back, shiny "fur" that it's indistinguishable from oiled-up, bare skin.

Those pix always make me wonder why bother making the character a furry if you're going to draw them so they don't look furry.

3HC-Hg-CH3 said:
Because a lot of people prefer humanoid art. Things like species are decoration. Few people are going 'No, I don't like this piece because I've never really liked rabbits.' They're going off of butts and chests and all the rest. In my experience surprisingly little of the furry fandom revolves around actual fur.

I think that you're essentially both right. The nature of the furry fandom involves a broad swath of characters that range from being 90% non-human and 10% human to 10% non-human and 90% human, basically. All takes are valid in their own way. I believe that realism is better most of the time and putting a lot of effort into details such as fur patterns makes a piece stand out, but there's nothing inherently wrong with subjectively enjoying certain fetishes, poses, situations, et cetera to a point where you're willing to gloss over details.

Personally, I really love the Zootopia universe in its sense of heavily feral-y designs. I tend to think that the fan creations that stick the closest to the movie (as in not being anything like humanoid bodies with fuzzy heads) are the best. Nonetheless, going off in different directions is also fine in creative experiments as long as you're honest about what you're doing (breaking with canon styles to suit your own subjective takes).

Wonder what goes through Nick's mind.

Rise to the occasion, Nick!